Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HARYANA TELECOM LTD. versus STERLITE INDUSTIRES (INDIA) LTD.

Decided
13 July 1999
Judges listed
B.N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 861 · 1999 INSC 272
Also cited as
  • (1999) 5 SCC 688 (15 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1999 SC 2354 (9 citing judgments)
  • JT 1999 (4) SC 545 (2 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0401/1999 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

On a winding up petition having been filed by the respondent before the High Court, the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter a/ia, contending that the High Court should refer the matter to arbitration.

p. 861, margin F

The Single Judge dismissed the application and the same was upheld by the Division Bench. while dismissing the appeal the High Court referred to similar cases relating to applications which have been filed under the provisions of the Indians Arbitration Act, 1940 where the consistent view of the High Courts was that the question regarding the winding up of a company 861 . could not be referred to an arbitrator.

pp. 861–862, margin G

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the language of Section 8 of the 1996 Act is different. Mr. Jaitely, submits that according to Section 8(1) the Judicial Authority is bound to refer that matter to the .arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

p. 862, margin A

Section 8 of the 1996 Act reads as under : "Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement- (l) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute refer the parties to arbitration. (2) The application referred to in Sub-section (I) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under subsection (l) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award

p. 862, margin B

made."

p. 862, margin E

Sub-section (1) of section 8 provides that where the judicial authority before whom an action is brought in a matter, will refer the parties to arbitration the said matter in accordance with the arbitration agreement. This, however, postulates, in our opinion, that what can be referred to the arbitrator is only that dispute or matter which the arbitrator is competent or empowered to decide.

p. 862, margin E

The claim in a petition for winding up is not for money. The petition filed under the Companies Act would be to the effect, in a matter like this, that the company has become commercially insolvent and, therefore, should be wound up. The power to order winding up of a company is contained under the Companies Act and is conferred on the court. An arbitrator, notwihtstanding any agreement between the parties would have no jurisdiction to order winding up of a company. The matter which is pending before the High Court in which the application was filed by the petitioner herein was

p. 862, margin F

HARY ANA TELECOM LTD. v. STERLITE INDUS. (INDIA) LTD. 863 relating to winding up of the company. That could obviously not be referred to the arbitration and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion was right in rejecting the application.

p. 863

For the aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed in limine. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 863, margin A